Title: Comparison of Alternative Versions of the Job Demand-control Scales in 17 European Cohort Studies: the Ipd-work Consortium

Abstract

Reviewer's report 1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes 2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? No 3. Are the data sound? No 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? No 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? No 6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes 7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished? Yes 8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes 9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes Congratulations on the authors’ initiative to build the IPD-Work Consortium. It is certainly a study with so many possibilities to elucidate associations which are still unclear about the influence on health effects of psychosocial risk factors at work. 1. Major Compulsory Revisions: Although the article is clear in its purpose and relevance regarding to the main question of the study, I would like to mention some concerns and to request some clarification in relation to this article:

Cite this paper

@inproceedings{GriepTitleCO, title={Title: Comparison of Alternative Versions of the Job Demand-control Scales in 17 European Cohort Studies: the Ipd-work Consortium}, author={Rosane H{\"a}rter Griep} }